Added on February 3, 2014 Ray Berg

Fire, Smut and Disease in Manchester, Part Three of Four

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page Send by Email

By Ray Berg and Alan Dyer

Smut Machines

It was determined that the May 1, 1853 Manchester Mill fire which destroyed the mill and a large part of Manchester’s downtown was caused by a custom smut machine on the third floor of the mill. “Smut” is defined as any of the various destructive diseases affecting cereal grasses, caused by parasitic fungi, and marked by transformation of the plant grains into dark masses of spores. The specific variety affecting wheat is also sometimes called “bunt”. Currently, smut and related fungi problems can be treated with fungicides or smut-resistant seeds.

However, in the 19^th century, when harvested grains were brought into the mill, the smut had to be removed via “smut machines”, which both scoured the grain to remove smut, dust, chaff and other undesired elements, and separated the heavy grain from the light grain. This was considered the first step in the grain milling process. “Custom smut machines” or “smut mills” referred to those machines designed to clean small quantities of differing grains that met the needs of the local farmer, like those living in the Manchester area. Figure 4 shows a locally patented smut machine.

Almost every mill in the country had at least one smut machine. Although inventors were continually refining and promoting their machines, they all depended upon a delicate balance of gravity, wind currents and suction to remove the smut from the grain. The larger regional mills by railroads could afford to invest in the most modern and efficient machines for their steady orders, whereas the smaller mills, like Manchester, were more likely to employ less expensive, but older and less efficient, technology, or do completely without.

Figure 4 – Samuel Foster’s 1839 Smut Machine, designed at Scio, Michigan

(U. S Patent No. 1436)

Flouring mills were always at risk of fire and explosion from friction-related heating caused by rotating parts and mill stones, and wise mill owners purchased insurance and followed standard design and safety practices to minimize fire risks. Adding to friction-related heating, the accumulation, concentration and subsequent decay of smut spores removed from the grain increased this risk through spontaneous combustion, and this was certainly a well-known and documented problem in 1853.

Several mill insurance companies and mill design guides, e.g., Charles C. Hine’s Fire Insurance: A Book of Instructions, 1870, stated: “…smut machines must be critically examined for rapid motions and heating journals, and the smut machine should be placed in the basement, where easily flooded (in the event of fire) and easily watched. If in an upper story, in a dark corner, cased in wood, and difficult of access, it is a first-class incendiary. Beware! Smut must not be permitted to accumulate; it should be blown out of the building as made, or cleaned out daily.” Hine’s guide also noted: “87 per cent of the flour-mill fires in this field, during four years and seven months, occurred at night …this excessive night-burning can be quite largely accounted for by two ignitious sources: 1) from smouldering fire under the pulley in an elevator head, and 2) from spontaneous combustion in mill dust or smut.”

The Manchester Mill, as it was configured in 1853, ignored these precautions, having placed its smut machine on the third floor against the design guidance. Apparently there was an accumulation of smut there and resultant combustion, for the fire occurred on a Sunday morning at 6 AM when the mill was not in operation.

The Manchester Mill was rebuilt after the 1853 fire, but continued to struggle economically for several years. It is not known exactly when changes were made to the collection of smut, and when the smut machine was placed on the lower level of the mill. Noah Holt, owner of the mill in the 1880s and 1890s, held several patents for grain scouring and filtering, and likely had modern equipment in place before he sold the business and moved from Manchester.

The Hine’s insurance manual advice that “smut be blown out of the building” was intended to limit the risk of spontaneous combustion and fire. It was adopted by not only the Manchester Mill but, as it turns out, by many flouring and grain mills along the River Raisin beginning in the 1860s. This change in operating practice would have unintended and serious consequences for persons living nearby these mills.